Colonizing Bodies: How Christianity’s Control Over Gender, Sexuality, and the Body Shaped Systems of Power
Reclaiming Identity from Christian Oppression
Let’s start with a question: How often do you think about the ways faith has shaped how you feel about your body?
For centuries, Christianity hasn’t just told us how to pray or what to believe—it’s told us how to live in our bodies. Who we can love. How we’re allowed to look. What roles we’re supposed to fill based on whether we were assigned male or female at birth. At its core, it’s a story about control—a system that reinforced patriarchal power while suppressing anything that didn’t fit its rigid binary framework.
But here’s the thing: Christianity’s domination of bodies wasn’t the beginning of the story. For many cultures, gender and sexuality were sacred, fluid, and expansive. Bodies weren’t something to be controlled—they were celebrated.
So how did we get here? How did Christian theology move from stories of love and liberation to a system that colonized bodies, dictated beauty, and erased entire ways of being? And more importantly, how can we begin to reclaim what’s been lost?
This is a story of domination, but also one of reclamation. As we unravel how Christianity’s doctrines were used to enforce control over gender, sexuality, and the body, we create space to imagine and embody liberation.
The Enforced Binary: Cis-Heteronormativity and Patriarchy
Christianity’s theological framework has long upheld cisheteronormativity—the idea that there are only two genders (male and female) and that heterosexuality is the natural or moral standard. These beliefs are deeply rooted in the binary thinking that defines supremacy culture: good versus evil, sacred versus profane, male versus female.
Biblical Justifications for Gender Roles
Christianity enshrined patriarchy by using scripture to define rigid roles for men and women:
Genesis 2:22: The creation of Eve from Adam’s rib was interpreted as divine proof of women’s subservience to men.
Ephesians 5:22-24: “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord…” reinforced the expectation of male dominance in both family and society.
These interpretations disregarded the broader context of scripture, instead turning isolated verses into tools for systemic oppression.
Refelction Prompts:
How might your understanding of scripture change if you considered its original cultural and historical context?
In what ways have binary frameworks—male/female, good/evil—limited your understanding of yourself or others?
Cisheteronormativity and Sexuality
It is ironic that Greco-Roman societies—known for their sexual fluidity, bisexuality, and even institutionalized pedophilia—would later champion such strict binaries of sexuality and gender. This shift wasn’t about morality but power. As Christianity became a tool for consolidating authority, the Church aligned with patriarchal systems to enforce cisheteronormativity, criminalizing diverse expressions of love and partnership. This transformation marked the beginning of a new world order, where control over bodies was central to domination.
One of the most weaponized scriptures in this narrative is Leviticus 18:22, often cited to condemn same-sex relationships:
“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”
Original Context and Translation
In its original Hebrew, the verse reads:
Literal translation: “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is a taboo.”
This text was part of a larger purity code within the Holiness Code of Leviticus, which outlined ritual practices meant to distinguish ancient Israelites from neighboring cultures. The verse specifically targeted acts perceived as violations of ritual purity, particularly those associated with temple prostitution or fertility rites common in neighboring Canaanite religions.
What It Wasn’t About
Leviticus 18:22 was not addressing consensual, loving relationships as we understand them today. Its focus was on maintaining the distinctiveness of Israelite worship practices and rejecting what were seen as idolatrous sexual behaviors in surrounding cultures.
The Shift in Interpretation
As Christianity expanded and moved further away from its Jewish origins, this verse was stripped from its cultural and ritual context and reframed as a universal condemnation of all same-sex relationships. This reinterpretation aligned with the Church’s efforts to regulate sexuality and enforce heterosexual, reproductive partnerships. By doing so, the Church:
Strengthened patriarchal family structures as the foundation of Christian societies.
Criminalized non-heteronormative relationships, framing them as threats to moral and social order.
This shift wasn’t about preserving sacred texts but using them as tools of control—turning a verse about ritual purity into a weapon against LGBTQ+ people. This reimagining of sacred texts wasn’t just about sexuality—it was part of a larger framework that sought to impose order through rigid binaries. By defining what was “natural” or “moral,” Christianity didn’t just shape personal beliefs—it built an entire worldview rooted in control and exclusion.
Reflection Prompt:
When you think about the concept of "natural" or "moral" relationships, whose definitions are being upheld, and whose are being erased?
How does learning about the cultural context of Leviticus 18:22 change the way you think about its modern usage?
Christianity’s Theological Framework: “Binary Thinking” From Sacred Fluidity to Body Control
Christianity’s theological framework has long upheld cisheteronormativity—the idea that there are only two genders (male and female) and that heterosexuality is the natural or moral standard. These beliefs are deeply rooted in the binary thinking that defines supremacy culture: good versus evil, sacred versus profane, male versus female.
However, many Indigenous cultures across the world embraced more fluid and inclusive understandings of gender and sexuality before the imposition of Christian doctrine. These beliefs recognized gender as sacred and expansive, not confined to rigid binaries.
The diverse and inclusive understandings of gender embraced by Indigenous cultures before Christian colonization reveal a stark contrast to the binary thinking upheld by Christianity. These Indigenous frameworks celebrated fluidity and harmony, recognizing the sacredness of all expressions of identity.
Indigenous Beliefs on Gender Pre-Christianity
Among many Indigenous peoples of North America, including the Lakota, Navajo, and Ojibwe, Two-Spirit individuals held honored roles in their communities.
Two-Spirit people were believed to embody both masculine and feminine qualities, often serving as spiritual leaders, healers, or mediators.
This sacred understanding of gender defied the binary, recognizing a spectrum of identities that contributed to the community's balance and harmony.
In South Asian cultures, hijras were revered as a distinct gender outside the male-female binary.
Hijras, who are often intersex, transgender, or nonbinary, played significant roles in religious and cultural ceremonies, including blessings for fertility and childbirth.
Their existence, far from being stigmatized pre-colonization, was celebrated as part of the divine order.
In Polynesian cultures, such as those of Hawaii and Tahiti, mahu were individuals who embodied both masculine and feminine traits.
They were often seen as caretakers of cultural traditions, including dance, storytelling, and spiritual practices.
Mahu held respected positions within their communities, symbolizing balance and integration rather than division.
In Samoan culture, fa’afafine are people assigned male at birth who embody both masculine and feminine characteristics.
They are widely accepted and play key roles in family and societal structures, contributing to caregiving and communal harmony.
Fa’afafine identities reflect a longstanding cultural understanding of gender as fluid and multidimensional.
Among the Bugis people of Indonesia, there are five recognized genders: male, female, calabai (feminine men), calalai (masculine women), and bissu (androgynous or gender-transcendent shamans).
This belief system, rooted in pre-Islamic and pre-Christian traditions, views gender diversity as essential to spiritual and societal balance.
Gender Fluidity in West Africa:
Yoruba Deities (Nigeria):
In Yoruba spirituality, deities known as Orisha often embody both masculine and feminine characteristics, transcending human gender categories. For example, Obatala, the Orisha of creation, represents the balance of masculinity and femininity, symbolizing divine harmony and the sacred unity of gender.Igbo Cosmology (Nigeria):
In Igbo traditions, spiritual entities known as Alusi are described as embodying both male and female aspects, reflecting a cosmology where gender fluidity was natural and sacred. These beliefs extended to human roles, where spiritual leaders or chosen individuals could transcend binary gender norms as part of their divine purpose.Dahomey Amazons (Benin):
The Dahomey Amazons, an elite all-female military unit in the Kingdom of Dahomey, blurred traditional gender roles by embodying qualities of both strength and protection, traditionally assigned to men. Their revered role reflected the culture’s acknowledgment of gender transcendence in service to the community.
These roles and beliefs highlight the divine acknowledgment of gender diversity within the global Indigenous spiritual traditions, long before colonial and Christian influences imposed rigid binaries. However, when Christianity imposed its theological framework, this reverence for diversity was systematically erased. The Church not only enforced rigid gender roles but extended its control to physical bodies, equating holiness with conformity and bodily discipline. This obsession with control paved the way for a theology that policed not just gender and sexuality, but also physical appearance—demonizing larger bodies and equating them with sin.
Reflection Prompt:
What might your community or family look like if gender were celebrated as fluid and expansive, as in these Indigenous traditions?
How does honoring the sacredness of diverse gender expressions challenge the binaries imposed by supremacy culture?
Colonial Narratives: Shaped by Scarcity and Lack
The colonial narrative that thinness symbolized “civilization” while larger bodies represented “savagery” was deeply tied to Europe’s historical lived experience of scarcity. For centuries, much of Europe faced harsh climates, limited growing seasons, and resource shortages. These conditions fostered an energetic field of lack, where survival often depended on strict control of resources, labor, and even the body itself.
When European colonizers encountered Indigenous and African societies, whose lands were abundant and whose cultural practices often celebrated communal feasting and the body as sacred, they projected their own scarcity-based worldview onto these cultures.
Thinness as “Civilized,” Abundance as “Savage”
Thinness, discipline, and bodily restraint became markers of “civilized” European identity, reflecting their internalized need to control resources and suppress desires.
Larger bodies and communal celebrations of abundance—hallmarks of many non-European cultures—were labeled as evidence of primitiveness, gluttony, or lack of moral discipline.
Missionary Accounts and Dehumanization
Missionaries and colonizers often dehumanized Indigenous and African peoples through narratives that framed abundance as indulgence:
Feasting and celebration were criticized as gluttonous or immoral, reflecting a failure to align with European ideals of restraint.
Body positivity in these cultures was framed as a lack of discipline, justifying the imposition of colonial control over bodies, lands, and resources.
Body Oppression: Fatphobia and the Policing of Flesh
The colonial project intertwined Christianity’s body theology with Western ideals of “civilization.” Indigenous and African peoples, whose body types often fell outside these ideals, were labeled as “primitive” or “ungodly,” reinforcing stereotypes and justifying their oppression.
Scriptural Justifications:
Proverbs 23:2: “Put a knife to your throat if you are given to gluttony.”
This verse was often interpreted to vilify indulgence and excess, framing larger bodies as signs of uncontrolled appetite and moral failure.
1 Corinthians 9:27: “But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.”
This passage reinforced the idea that bodily discipline was synonymous with spiritual virtue, creating a framework that equated thinness with holiness.
Colonial Narratives:
Thinness became a marker of “civilized” European identity, while larger bodies were seen as evidence of supposed savagery.
Missionary accounts often dehumanized Indigenous peoples, criticizing their communal feasting and celebratory rituals as gluttonous and immoral.
These narratives persist today, embedding fatphobia in healthcare, media, and cultural standards, disproportionately harming Black, Indigenous, and other marginalized communities.
Reflection Prompt:
How have societal standards of thinness or "fitness" influenced your relationship with your body?
In what ways can you begin to resist internalized narratives about your body that stem from colonial or religious frameworks?
Policing Pleasure and Embodiment
Christianity’s theology frequently alienated people from their bodies by promoting asceticism and the rejection of physical pleasures. This alienation laid the groundwork for modern struggles with body image and disconnection from physical autonomy.
Scriptural Justifications:
Galatians 5:16-17: “Walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit.”
This dichotomy positioned bodily pleasure as inherently sinful, creating a framework where indulgence was equated with spiritual failure.
Matthew 16:24: “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.”
This verse glorified self-denial, encouraging practices like fasting, celibacy, and bodily discipline as markers of spiritual devotion.
Impacts on Embodiment:
Pleasure and joy became suspect, while the body itself was viewed as a site of temptation.
Sensuality, especially in marginalized bodies, was demonized—contributing to the erasure of Indigenous and Earth-based spiritualities that celebrated embodiment as sacred.
This disdain for the body perpetuated systems of shame, particularly around sexuality, food, and physical appearance.
Reflection Point:
What role does pleasure—whether through food, movement, or sensuality—play in your daily life?
How might you reconnect with your body as a source of joy, rather than shame or guilt?
These narratives persist today, embedding fatphobia into healthcare, media, and cultural standards. By framing larger bodies as deviant and celebrating thinness as virtuous, modern Western culture continues to perpetuate the colonial association of abundance with moral failure.
This same framework is utilized to demonize bodily pleasure and diversity. These systems have caused harm not only through colonization but also through internalized oppression—disconnecting people from their own bodies and identities.
Recognizing that these narratives arose from a worldview of scarcity allows us to confront their origins and dismantle the systems they uphold. In doing so, we can honor the wisdom of cultures that celebrated abundance, connection, and the sacredness of the body—values erased by colonial narratives of lack.
Reflection Prompt:
How do narratives of scarcity—whether about resources, love, or worth—continue to show up in your own life or community?
What would abundance and communal celebration look like if disconnected from colonial narratives of "civilized" and "savage"?
The Worship of the Written Word and Binary Thinking
Christianity’s emphasis on scriptural literalism entrenched binary thinking, reducing complex human experiences to categories of good versus evil, male versus female, sacred versus sinful. This framework marginalized bodies, practices, and beliefs that did not fit these rigid molds.
Elevating Intellect Over Embodiment:
Romans 8:13: “For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.”
This verse perpetuated the view that the body was an obstacle to spiritual salvation, subordinating it to the mind or spirit.
The body was reduced to a vessel to be controlled, rather than celebrated as an integral part of the human experience.
Silencing Indigenous Spiritualities:
Many Indigenous and Earth-based traditions honored cycles, fluidity, and the sacredness of the body. Christianity’s binary framework labeled these practices as pagan or demonic.
This erasure replaced holistic views of embodiment with rigid categories that policed behavior, appearance, and identity.
Reclaiming embodiment is a radical act of liberation, one that requires dismantling the binaries of sacred versus sinful, male versus female, and good versus evil. By honoring the complexity of our physical and spiritual selves, we can begin to heal from the harm these systems have perpetuated.
Reflection Prompt:
How has the emphasis on scriptural literalism affected your understanding of spirituality and embodiment?
What Indigenous or Earth-based practices resonate with you as ways to honor the body and spirit?